a. PUBLIC
HEARING/ORDER 06-9-20-6/In the Matter of Authorizing the Transfer to the
City of Oakridge County Owned Real Property Identified as Assessor's Map No.
21-35-16-12, Tax Lots 2600 and 3000 (Located at the Corner of Sanford and High
Leah Dr., Oakridge)

Jeff Turk,
Management Services, reported that the City of Oakridge had requestedthe County transfer to them two parcels of
County owned property that were acquired through tax foreclosure.He said the city wants the property to help
with drainage.He noted the properties
are steep on a hillside on a main drainage way.He said the properties were acquired through tax foreclosure in
1992 and have been offered at Sheriff’s sales.He said they haven’t sold as they are difficult to develop because of
the topography.He indicated the city
council had taken action on the matter to request the County transfer the
properties to them and they would use it for a public purpose.He explained if the Board approves the
transfer, it would occur pursuant to ORS 271-330 that provides for transferring
County owned property to other public entities, provided the properties are
used for a public purpose for not less than 20 years.He added the statute requires a public hearing be held on the
matter before the Board takes action.

Turk indicated
notice of public hearing was published in The Register-Guard on September
4 and 11.

Commissioner Dwyer
opened the Public Hearing.There being
no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-9-20-6.

Morrison MOVED,
Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. SECOND READING
AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 8-06/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 7 of
Lane Code to Add a Provision Pertaining to Capturing and Killing of a Dog or
Cat (LC 7.122) (NBA & PM 8/30/06).

Dwyer explained
there was a legal memorandum from their attorneys and under the proposed ordinance,
no one is allowed to kill a cat or dog under any circumstances unless a
reasonable person has the right to defend themselves. He commented that killing
feral cats would generally not be allowed under the proposed ordinance, even if
LCARA could not respond in a manner the property owner believes to be timely.
He read the rule into the record.

Sorenson indicated
Mike Wellington, LCARA, received a letter from Inga Gibson on August 29
suggesting code changes to their proposed ordinance.He read the proposed changes.He said they added: maintains, captures and also traps and the word
harm.He said they added a sentence
that made it clear that each animal involved in a violation constitutes a
separate offense.He asked if they made
the changes today if they would have to have another reading.

Marc Kardell,
Assistant County Counsel, said he reviewed the language.He believed that if someone captures an
animal, it encompasses the word trap. He said causing a death to an animal is
already on their books.He indicated
the issue with the pest control company was the method they used to kill an
animal and it might not qualify as cruelly causing the death of an animal.With regard to harm, Kardell said they had
animal abuse and neglect and if they intentionally harm an animal, it is
covered under the code.He said if
there is more than one animal involved, they currently site it in the
code.He suggested having another reading
if they are going to be making changes.He said because the words are all encompassed, he didn’t think there
were significant changes. He thought they should have an additional reading
because Suchart and Wellington were not present.

Dwyer liked the
language the current way they have it, as it was cleaner with regard to intent.

Kardell said this
was drafted to respond to a particular situation and they already have laws on
the book to deal with animal abuse and animal neglect.

Dwyer asked which
language would give them more strength.

Kardell responded
that harm could be added if they didn’t already have a provision dealing with
animal abuse and neglect.He didn’t
believe it was necessary as they were always able to deal with people who cause
pain to animals.He indicated that is
what the provision is intended to prohibit.

Commissioner Dwyer
opened the Public Hearing.

Rita Castillo, Springfield, commented if the ordinance was
workable, then LCARAwouldn’t have had
a problem.She thought they needed to
change the wording to make it strong enough for them to do something.She said it is easy to misinterpret rabies
when they are in a situation where they have to make a snap decision.She said the best cared for animals can
sometimes get away. She said if they cannot ascertain if an animal is a pet or
not, then the animal shouldn’t be killed.

Susan McDonald, Eugene, distributed information.She said the authorization issued by the
Springfield ODFW office and used by Swanson and condoned by LCARA as official
permission to trap and kill the cats in Creswell was invalid.She said that ODFW has no authority over
domestic cats.She said they cannot and
did not regulate or authorize the taking of domestic cats.She said there is a discrepancy because in
Mike Wellington’s official report, an authorization was provided that this was
a legal activity.She said it stated
dead wildlife, nothing about cats. She included a letter from the investigator
that was condoned by the director saying what Swanson did was practicing
veterinarian medicine without a license and they were told to cease and
desist.She said they were told that
they are not allowed to refer to what was done as euthanasia.She indicated the people involved were not
trained properly.She thought the
language the ordinance has is not adequate.

Lillian Knight stated she is a cat person and has taken in
feral cats.

Anita Devaney, Eugene, stated she was in favor of making
changes.She commented that domestic
cats in her neighborhood are being captured.She said that cats roam and it is hard to determine if a cat is domestic
or feral.She thought the ordinance
should be reworded for humane purposes in showing compassion.She also thought harm should be put in the
ordinance.

Ron Knight commented that any wording to make the
ordinance more specific or direct would be a plus.

Katherine Ford, Eugene, said if the code as written is
enough to stop the method of extermination, then she would be in agreement to
pass it as it is.She thought the Board
needed to handle this properly.

David Calderwood,Eugene, supported the ordinance.He thought if they took a vote of the kennel clubs that they would
support it.He supported the words
traps and harms.

Lisa Fisher, Eugene, is in support of changing the code
to make it stricter.She thought that
harming and trapping should be enforced in the code.

John Archer, Junction City, supported the ordinance but
he wanted the changes that Sorenson brought up.He commented that most owners don’t know when an animal is
sick.He said they need strength in the
ordinance. He wondered why the ordinance wasn’t used before.

Scott Bartlett, Eugene, commented that the ordinance was
good and Sorenson’s amendments make it better.He said this was a symptom of an overpopulation crisis with cats.

Dwyer wanted the
right to private action reviewed for the ordinance.He said it allows for someone other than the government to bring
action for a violation of the law. He thought they also needed to put in
prevailing attorney fees.

Sorenson wanted to
change the policy.He thought they
should have a private right of action.He wanted to make it clear that harming animals is against the law in
Lane County.He wanted to bring this
back for another reading, adding the private right of action where someone
gives notice to the County.He said if
the County doesn’t take an action, then they could try to go to court.

Kardell said they
have the private party right to initiate an action in their code dealing with
noise enforcement.

Dwyer wanted Kardell
to review the right to private action to include the wording as outlined by
Sorenson in terms of the intent to harm and see what they could do about the
clarity in the ordinance.He said they
will have another reading.

Van Vactor
recommended rolling this to a work session where they could work on specific
language.

Sorenson wanted to
do what was suggested by adding the language of “traps” and “harm” and what
constitutes a violation.He didn’t want
the private right of action but direct staff to come back to propose that
language because they will see more needs in Lane County government to see the
private right of action in a lot of areas.

MOTION:to
approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance
8-06 for September 27, 2006.

Sorenson MOVED,
Green SECONDED.

Kardell had a
concern adding that each one is a separate violation.He thought it detracts from the clarity they had from the other
animal control ordinances where they don’t have the language.He said it seems to apply if they said it in
one and not in the other, then in the others they couldn’t act when they are
separate animals.He thought putting it
on now would make animal abuse cases more difficult to argue if there are
separate charges against different animals, that it shouldn’t all be treated as
one.

Stewart thought it
would be more prudent to approve the ordinance the way it is, give direction to
amend it in the future as they can to add Sorenson’s wording and the right of
action so there is something on the books starting today instead of waiting
before they act.

Sorenson said adding
the language would not slow it down; it would be done within a month..He didn’t want to tie it to the private
right of action.He said they have to
make it clear it is against the policy of Lane County to harm an animal.

Dwyer didn’t believe
the three words were substantive changes.

Green wanted to
either take action today or slow the process down so it would withstand a legal
challenge.

Kardell didn’t
believe the changes were substantive but because Suchart and Wellington weren’t
able to attend the meeting, they might feel the changes were substantive.

Sorenson wanted to
roll this for a week and continue deliberations.

VOTE: 5-0.

c. PUBLIC
HEARING/ORDER 06-9-20-7/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 06-5959, Green).

Kent Howe, Land
Management, reported this is a five acre property on Legal Lane, offParsons Creek Road, west of Marcola.He noted the property was acquired in 1973
and at that time it was unzoned.He
said it is currently zoned rural residential with a five acre minimum land
division.He said the claimant wants to
divide the property into lots less than five acres in size, each with a dwelling.He said the applicant had submitted listings
from the Multiple Listing Service as their value reduction analysis.He indicated they acquiredthe property in 1973 and in 1992 transferred
it through a living trust that is revocable.He noted the name of the trust is Norman and Frieda as the trustees and
the trust is not considered a new owner.He said it appears to be a valid claim.

Commissioner Dwyer
opened the Public Hearing.

Norman Green, Springfield, wanted to see if things were
clear as to the circumstances.He said
it was hard to utilize a small five acre tract because it has a live stream and
a riparian zone.He commented that five
acres was too much to do single handedly and it would be better by dividing it
and putting a second home site on it.

There being no one
else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-9-20-7.

Green MOVED, Stewart
SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

d. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 06-9-20-4/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 06-5965, Braun).

Howe explained this
was a four acre piece of property on Coburg Bottom Loop Road, one-half mile
west of Coburg.He said the property
was acquired in 1971 and at that time it was zoned AGT, a minimum division of
one acre.He said the property is
currently zoned rural residential and has a two acre minimum lot size.He said the applicant wants to divide the
property into lots less than two acres, each with a dwelling.He stated the applicant had not submitted an
appraisal but a real estate brokers’ opinion about the reduction of value in
the amount of $220,000.He indicated
the County Administrator waived the requirement for an appraisal.

Howe said the issue
is the conveying of interest to the Braun Family Trust in 1999 and back to the
current owners in 2005.He said the
trust formation document was not provided until today.He said they need to review the trust so it
doesn’t create a new owner.He added if
it does not, it appeared they have a valid claim.

Vorhes said his
review of the trust documents was like the revocable living trust with the
previous case.He needed to confirm how
the conveyance was handled

Commissioner Dwyer
opened the Public Hearing.

Carl Mueller stated he is the agent for the
applicant.He said at the time he
submitted the application, Mr. Braun was not able to locate that document.He said Braun found it and took it to Land
Management.He said when they submitted
their application, they thought all the evidence was there, that the trust was
revocable even without the document.He
provided the bargain and sales deed to the Braun Family.He indicated Oregon had adopted the Uniform
Trust Code to provide the assumption that any trust is revocable.He added there was a second bargain and sale
deed conveying the property to the Brauns as husband and wife, grantees (Exhibit
A).He said they went forward even though
at that time they couldn’t find the trust instrument.He said all evidence submitted indicates the trust was
revocable.He said there was also the
title report stating it is to Roberta J. Braun and Cassimer J. Braun, as
husband and wife.

Peter Gutoski, Coburg, stated he has a farm adjoining the
Braun farm.He wanted to see the final
document before the Board made a decision.He didn’t think the figures on the property added up.He didn’t see where the property had lost
value over the past 30 years.He didn’t
want to see the property qualify for a Measure 37 waiver.

There being no one
else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-9-20-4.

Morrison MOVED,
Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

e. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 06-9-20-5/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 06-6028, Pattison).

Howe explained this
was a 43-acre property located on Deadwood Creek Road, ten miles north of
Deadwood.He said a portion of the
property Jessie Pattison acquired was in 1972 with the remainder of the
property acquired in 1973.He said at
both acquisitions the properties were unzoned.He indicated there was no evidence that identifies when Elaine acquired
an interest in the property.He noted
currently the property is zoned impacted forest land, F2 with an 80 acre
minimum.He said they want to divide
the lot to less than 80 acres with a dwelling.He said the claimant has provided an appraisal and deeds.He stated it seems to be a valid claim for
Jessie Pattison.

Commissioner Dwyer
opened the Public Hearing.

Nancy Nichols, Deadwood, stated she received no
notice.She said the application was
incomplete.She thought what was needed
was a full title report showing continuous ownership and a map that shows what
property is covered by the rule from August 30, 1972 and what is covered on
August 16, 1973.She thought the center
would be booked all summer with weddings, seminars, retreats and
conventions.She indicated this
development is four miles from a paved two-lane road.She commented that the road doesn’t meet the current safety
standard for a private road serving two residences.She noted that some spots don’t meet the width requirements for a
driveway access.She noted that
accidents were common with most being low speed fender benders.She commented that this proposal affects
everyone who counts on the road for access.She asked if the Board approves the application to add a requirement
that the planning department notify everyone who relies on the gravel road for
access.She noted the appraiser didn’t
provide comparable sale value for a coast range resort.She said they don’t have an appraisal
yet.She commented that Lane County
would be better off requiring a real appraisal and paying the Pattisons for
their real loss.She thought in the
long run it would be less than the extra road maintenance and Sheriff costs.She said once they have an application, she
asked the Board to notify everyone who would be affected by the increase of
traffic.

There being no one
further signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-9-20-5.

Stewart MOVED,
Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

16. COMMISSIONERS'
ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

17. CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD

None.

18. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, Commissioner Bill Dwyer adjourned the
meeting at 4:30 p.m.